"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Discuss

[dunBle]

To save further derailment of the Sandie Peggie tribunal threads with people debating Tandora's statements on the above theme, I've started this thread to point them to instead.

I highly doubt that anyone called you "evil" for that reason.

Misguided, ideological perhaps, but not evil.

If it was in response to something like the promotion of puberty blockers, it's more understandable. Context is everything.

Which thread was it on? Being called evil is extreme. I have premium so can look at individual posters

at the same time my own question has sunk so I’ll quote it again

Quite surprised that someone so educated can't use a search function

you're welcome to it was on one of yesterday's SP tribunal threads that led to the creation of this thread.

perfect example of the anger and personal attacks/ insults. When all I'm really trying to do is share information/ challenge prejudice about a subject that's really important, that I know a lot about and that I really care about.

And yet, you mention your qualifications often enough that we all know about them.

And you, personally, have done plenty of accusing others of 'being ignorant' . Again, this is the hypocrisy that people consistently point out to you. You constantly accuse others of being 'very very angry' while you, personally, name call others. I believe you attempt to position others as being emotional about this in your accusations of 'anger' etc as another attempt to discredit people. Which is quite remarkable because then you also constantly leverage emotional reasoning to support your points.

"my only desire is to challenge the misunderstanding and misinformation spread widely on this site, and offer a different voice/ perspective based on actually being informed on the issue."

By not posting evidence to support your arguments? Yet you fall back on declaring your qualifications. So, you are not aiming to inform, only to challenge. Ok. I suggest then that you accept that people will continue to highlight to readers that you don't support your opinions with evidence and that others will simply challenge you back.

"I often site evidence on my posts, but actually the issue isn't lack of evidence'.

Really? Excellent. Then you really do have all those links handy and I encourage you to post them very freely.

"There's a vast amount of academic/ scientific/ medical and policy sphere literature that pps are able to access. It's that people are totally unwilling/ unable to see what's right in front of them because they have become entrenched in twisted and misleading logics that need to be reasoned through. That's what I'm trying to help with."

No. People are not 'unwilling to/ unable to see what's right in front of them'. Because I have rarely seen you support your posts with evidence as I have said.

You cannot 'help' untwist logic without providing sound logic and coherent and cogent points and evidence. So, you simply repeating incoherent points doesn't 'help' people at all. Perhaps, if you have all these years of experience and knowledge, you should adjust the way you communicate that and maybe people will understand your point of view with clarity.

as the thread is in the context of the Upton / Peggie tribunal, it would be useful to know if there are certain aspects of the case we should consider if sex is multidimensional

It took me about 30 seconds btw, and I don't even have a PhD. Nor am I yet convinced about the relevance of any of this. She said. Yet again

This quote from Jon Pike seems relevant to this thread. He is talking about philosophers an sport specifically, but I'm sure we can see why his observations are apposite.
(He is runthinkwrite on X)

I do think it's fine for philosophers of sport to speculate along the lines of "How about we replace sex categories with T-levels, or an algorithm?" Imho, it's fine for philosophers to speculate about pretty much anything. ...

But I think we should answer the question: well, what would be the effect? We should speculate concretely. And I don't think sports regulators should pay us any attention at all until we do so. ...

One root of the problems we are in, is that sports regulators paid too much attention to very bad, speculative ideas in sport academia, and not enough attention to serious work in the ethics of sport.

You are really trying to share your opinion.

No need. We have global search capability. And someone has already taken minutes and found it.

Surprise isn't anger, and it isn't a 'personal attack' to express surprise that a highly qualified academic/researcher can't apply their research skills to the real world. Oh...

I actually took a screenshot as I was so shocked.

Maybe screenshots of mumsnet posts aren’t allowed? In which case I apologies to HQ

What was angry or a personal attack about that post?

Sorry! I got mixed up with your post and the screenshot, I thought you were the person who said "people like tandora don't care who they hurt" or whatever it is at the bottom.

Yes expressing surprise is not angry.

Using a disability, which dsd’s are, to argue that healthy males can enter women’s changing spaces is pretty low so I can understand why someone has a strength of feeling around that.

personally I reserve the term evil for the men who’ve claimed a trans status to gain access to and then sexually abused children.

People like xxx don't care who they insult, offend and hurt. I thought it was you who said that.

But yes that screen shot shows the anger. There was more today of one nutty enraged poster saying that I was interfering with her ability to "organise around the protected characteristic of being gender critical" and she wasn't going to tolerate it any longer and she was encouraging everyone to report me to get me banned from the thread.

Annnnyyyyway, this really isn't an interesting conversation.

The point was people are angry about this subject. They think I'm here to cause offence. Actually I'm here to spread informed information about a subject I know a lot about and care about very deeply. It's a question of science, a question of justice, for people with DSDs, trans people, gender diverse and non conforming people of all types, and ultimately women and men.

Or the other way round; abused children and then claimed a trans status to get an easier time in prison, which appears to be common.

is pretty low

Your opinion of me is noted.

But it’s also a question of safeguarding.

in many different ways.

one way as described by this Dr upthread

No I don't think safeguarding is of relevance here. At least not in the way you think it is.

It’s my opinion of your argument, NOT you as a human.

This is where there the academic rigour is needed, to debate the social justice impact of what you’re asserting

then it’s simply theoretical.

as any discussion about medicine, biological sex, gender, the law etc is rooted in safeguarding law.

It’s my opinion of your argument, NOT you as a human

Thank you.

People trying to pretend that people with DSDs aren't part of this conversation are being disingenuous. This entire conversation is about how we define and understand sex. We had posters earlier insisting that women with CAIS are properly described as "male". This causes direct pain/ harm to women with CAIS. It needs to be challenged.